The Role of Standard Cognitive and Personality Tests in Neuropsychological Assessment

Abstract

Clinical neuropsychology has become one of the fastest growing specialty areas in psychology (Golden & Kuperman, 1980), and is now recognized as a distinct and legitimate area of specialized practice. Central to this growth, and well documented throughout this volume, has been the success of neuropsychological testing procedures in detecting the presence and localization of brain dysfunction. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of standard cognitive and personality tests in the neuropsychological assessment of adults. The specific assessment devices covered are those measures generally considered to be part of the standard battery employed by traditionally trained clinicians for routine assessment purposes (e. g., the Wechsler tests, Bender-Gestalt, Rorschach, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, etc.). The utility of these testing procedures is first examined in a historical perspective that acknowledges the differences between the clinical psychological and neuropsychological approaches to the assessment of brain dysfunction. The strengths and weaknesses of these tests for neurodiagnostic purposes are next reviewed. Finally, the potential utility of standard cognitive and personality tests as adjuncts to other neuropsychological procedures is discussed in the context of the emerging emphasis on issues of everyday living.

Chelune, G. J. (1982). A re-examination of the relationships between the Luria-Nebraska and the Halstead-Reitan Batteries: Overlap with the WAIS. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 578–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Mermelstein, J. J. (1983). A process approach to the Bender-Gestalt Test and its use in differentiating schizophrenic, brain-damaged, and medical patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 173–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Reitan, R. M. (1966). A research program on the psychological effects of brain lesions in human beings. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 1 ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar